One persistent claim in U.S. society is that, “The troops fought/fight for our freedom!” and that we “fight for freedom” in our various wars. In my experience, this idea is brought up to try and silence criticism of the United States and/or to generally encourage nationalism. The implied accusation is that by criticizing the United States, or failing to sufficiently support our country, we are disrespecting our service members who sacrificed so that we could have our freedom.

But is this claim true?

Everyone in the U.S. should question if this true because we should be interested in the truth. We should also recognize our foreign policy actions impact the world, take a lot of lives and cost a lot of money. People who support the troops, serve in the military, or have loved ones and friends who serve in the military should be especially interested in questioning this claim. After all, if the troops are sent to fight for something other than freedom or an equally noble goal, then what is the real reason we are asking the troops to take incredible risks for, and are those reasons worth it?

A clear way to find an answer.

I would argue the most direct way to assess this question is to look at the times our troops have actually fought in wars, and see if it was against an enemy that was a reasonable threat to our national sovereignty. I say this for two main reasons. First, examining when the U.S. has deemed it worthy to send our troops into harms way sets aside a lot of politics and propaganda that cloud this issue. Second, to claim that our wars are to secure our freedom is to suggest that we are fighting a threat to our actual national sovereignty. In other words, one is claiming that without the U.S. troops fighting on our behalf in those wars, external forces would invade the U.S., overthrow our government, and set up a more repressive society with less freedom. If our wars are not against such an actual threat, then how could this claim be true; how could we be fighting for freedom if our freedoms were never endangered?

The largest group of wars (51/107 by my count) have been wars fought against Native American tribes as the U.S. government sought to expand its territory.

A small group of wars, such as the Barbary Pirate Wars and the Aegean Sea Operations, clustered around naval privacy impacting our trade as we got our footing as a nation.

At the dawn of the 19th century many of our wars, invasions and occupations began to shift to match our growing imperial ambitions. The annexation of Hawaii, the Spanish-American war, the Banana Wars and others marked a shift away from being satisfied with a nation from “sea to shining sea” but a nation increasingly interested in holding colonies abroad.

In the 80’s and 90s there were a number of wars that could be loosely classified as humanitarian interventions that attempted to stabilize regions or intervene in ongoing conflicts. While noble in their intention, it cannot be reasonably argued that combatants in places like Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo sought to invade the U.S.

There have been a number of wars that removed dictators and/or helped provide for democratic elections. Even as we cheer the removal of dictators we must wrestle with the fact that we have been very inconsistent on this issue (we are very comfortable with some oppressive regimes, but then others deserve to be invaded and overthrown?) and that none of these dictators sought to invade us.

Almost none of these wars were against a reasonable threat to our sovereignty.

The vast majority of all our wars, including wars engaged in during the Cold War and the subsequent Global War on Terror, were not against an enemy that had any reasonable desire or capacity to invade the United States and do away with our freedoms. Did we really think that Cubans were going to land in Florida and march into D.C. after they freed themselves from Spanish rule? Do we believe the Vietnamese were going to build a navy and invade the West Coast after they fought off French colonial rule and our subsequent proxy war against the USSR? Do we believe the Taliban were planning on uniting the various groups in Afghanistan, revealing previously hidden vast resources to build a military, and then para-drop into the U.S.?

From this list of all the wars involving the United States military I only see perhaps four that I believe could be reasonably argued to have presented conflicts that threatened our freedom: the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 (though Britain was not trying to force us back into the British Empire), the Civil War (though if the South had won our Constitution would simply not have been changed) and World War Two (assuming Germany and Japan would have invaded if they won in Europe and the Pacific).

If this is correct, that means 4/107 or 3.7% of our wars have actually been about our national sovereignty and the freedoms guaranteed by our nation.

If they were not for freedom, or defending us against a threat to our freedom, what were they really about?

Ultimately, I would argue most of our wars are about land, resources, and money.

The wars against Native Americans were to take their land and resources, enabling national, personal and corporate profit.

The wars against pirates were about our ability to trade and make money without interference.

The early wars of empire were about establishing and dominating commerce and profit in places like Cuba, the Philippines and the Nicaragua. We illegally militarily annexed Hawaii because some missionaries turned sugar barons didn’t want to pay higher taxes on sugar.

Examining our efforts at regime change from Hawaii to Iraq, including invasions and wars but also CIA and more covert operations, there is a rather reliable pattern that propels us into war and our troops into harms way. 1) A Western corporation is conducting business in a foreign country and that country limits their profits in some way (like establishing better rights for local workers). 2) That corporation complains to U.S. politicians and lobbies them to intervene on their behalf. They hide their economic issue behind national security issues. 3) Convinced or bribed to act, politicians sell the war to the American public, hiding the economic issue by explaining it as an issue relating to freedom or national security. They invoke and reinforce the “Troops fight for freedom” narrative to silence dissent and rally support for the invasion.

Overall, considering what has been discussed here and other aspects of our history and foreign policy, suggesting that the “troops fight for freedom” does not appear to be a true claim. At the very least it does not appear to be true the overhwelming majority of the time if we consider occasions where U.S. troops have actually been deployed.

Using this slogan to silence dissent is an undemocratic and disingenuous way to shut down conversations about our domestic and foreign policy. Anyone concerned about the welfare of our troops should be interested in this conversation and critical of nationalistic slogans like this because if the underlying rationale for most of our wars has not been securing our freedom, what are the real reasons we have sent out troops into harms way, and are these reasons worthy of the sacrifices we are asking those troops to make?

A Reasonable, Non-Violent Protest, Grounded in American Freedoms and Rights

“I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. To me, this is bigger than football and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder…” “[I will continue my protest until the American flag] represents what it’s supposed to represent.” Colin Kaepernick.

Kaepernick has explicitly said this protest is about ongoing racial injustice, especially a highly visible lack of police accountability when they kill or abuse people of color. He is calling for our society to change to match our espoused values.

His protest is in keeping with the larger arc of what limited social and moral progress we have made as a nation. When our nation was founded, the freedoms and rights many believe set us apart from all other nations were by law or by practice limited to a select group of rich white landowning men. For marginalized groups in the U.S. the very freedoms and rights we are told should be a source of national identity and pride for all citizens have not even applied to us. The moral and social progress we have made in this country has most often come from marginalized groups fighting for these rights and freedoms to extend to them as well. They have essentially asked, “Can we be included in America too?”

Kaepernick’s desires are also neither extreme nor absurd desires. He is expressing a desire for our society to address systemic racial injustice and for police accountability. Is it problematic to call our nation to address persistent injustices? Is there any community in our country that would suggest that the police who patrol their neighborhoods should be above the law?

This protest is non-violent. Kaepernick is not doing violence to anyone, nor is he calling for violence to be done to anyone.

This protest is also not opposed to the freedoms and rights guaranteed to any citizen. In fact, standing firmly in the tradition of those before him, Kaepernick is asking that the very freedoms and rights the flag is supposed to represent be applied to all people. He has not disparaged our ideals, but called us to actually live up to them.

This is to be expected. No protest is popular because by their nature it is going to be a group calling attention to something most people are comfortable ignoring. More to the point, every time that marginalized groups have asked “Can we be included in America too?” there has been a majority of their fellow citizens (especially White, male, Christian, Conservative citizens) who simply and loudly said, “No!”

The use of these and other deflections shows that many in the U.S.A. desperately want to get away from the central claim that Kaepernick is making in his protest: that racial injustice, especially in regards to policing, is an ongoing issue in the USA. But why?

…This is about us.

This claim is not about the moral merits of a flag, a symbol of our nation, our values and of us, it is a claim about the moral merits of us. This claim is saying we live in and abide by a society where systemic forms of racism persist and Black and Brown people are denied equal protection under the law. This claim implicates us. It requires a response from us. It requires that we consider our personal culpability or thoughts around the issues of race, justice, and America. For many, it is far easier to pretend this entire protest is something that it is not, and rabidly consume the words and comments of politicians and media mouthpieces who agree with these deflections, than to contemplate what this protest asks of us.

#TakeAKnee or #TakeASeat

Kaepernick’s claim, that racial injustice and unequal protection under the law exist in our society, invites us to choose a response. Broadly speaking I think there might be four general options people can choose.

We can ignore it: We can choose to ignore this whole situation and try to avoid it so we don’t have to think about it. However, burying one’s head in the sand like a human ostrich doesn’t seem responsible and is increasingly difficult to do given our national conversation and media attention to this issue.

We can reject it, and attempt to claim he is factually wrong.: One could hear out Kaepernick’s claim, but claim that it is false. However, the arguments against this increasingly well-studied and publicly acknowledged reality, the arguments that we essentially live in a post-racial society, never stand up to scrutiny and are undermined by the wealth of evidence for Kaepernick’s claims. Furthermore, if one really wants to argue this point, they will almost inevitably forced to adopt racist arguments (ex: “Ethnic minorities are over-represented in prisons because they are more prone to commit crime so they get caught for it more; White people are genetically more law-abiding” “Ethnic minorities are poorer because they don’t understand how to generate wealth; White people are genetecially superior when it comes to wealth generation”).

We can accept it, and see it as the way things should be.: An alternative would be to accept Kaepernick’s claim but resist his call to change because we believe that racial injustice and unequal protection under the law are acceptable. However, people generally don’t want to go down this route because overt racism is unfashionable in the U.S.

We can accept it, and agree with his call to change: We can agree with Kaepernick’s claim, the evidence behind it, and agree that we, as a nation, are not living up to our values. This requires that we accept that we, as a society, need to change. This requires we reflect on if we are complicit in the unjust status quo, what we can do to help change it, and what we need to do differently tomorrow.

Which category does your response fall under?

So if your response to Kaepernick’s claims fall broadly within the last option please #TakeAKnee and stand in solidarity with him. If your response to Kaepernick’s protest is one of the first three, at least publicly own the decision so your community knows where you stand and can respond to you appropriately. If you are still trying to distract yourself and other people from Kaepernick’s claim by making this about Trump, the flag, or veterans, please just #TakeASeat until you are ready to deal with the elephant in America’s dining room that is race.

These two and the economic ideology they represent paved the way for Trump.

While I have criticized the Green Party and see our future under Trump and the GOP as very bleak, most of my anger from the election of 2016 is actually at the Democratic Party. The Democratic party claims to be the liberal, progressive party that takes care of the average person and is concerned about the fate of the marginalized. The Democrats were running against the least favorable presidential candidate of all time that voters from both major political parties had major reservations about. This election was theirs to lose as it appeared a ham sandwich could have run against Trump and won.

And yet by a mixture of their hubris, Machiavellian strategies, and corruption they lost the election. While the many reasons that led to this historic loss deserve consideration, I believe the fundamental reason the Democrats lost (and have lost big in the last eight years) is their defense of the status quo. By the “status quo” I mean both the present circumstances that exist in the U.S. and the current direction and speed the U.S. is drifting in as guided by neoliberal capitalism. The Democratic Party’s commitment to this status quo cost them the Presidential election for some fairly simple reasons. The status quo is miserable for many, anti-establishment sentiment was a strong factor in this election, and their chosen candidate could not have better represented business as usual in D.C.

The Status Quo is Horrible for Many Americans

People across the United States, from all kinds of identities, communities, and political leanings are upset about the status quo.

Liberals and progressives voted for Obama who ran on a “Hope and Change” platform. The Democrats have delivered very little of the change many liberals hoped for. However, most people, conservative and liberal alike, are upset for reasons closer to home: most worry about their own material conditions and financial futures. Exit polling showed that 52% of voters listed the economy as the most pressing challenge faced by the United States. Years after the recession of 2008, people are still very worried about their ability to provide for themselves, their families and pursue the American dream.

Democratic Party’s Allegiance to Capitalism Makes them Culpable in this Misery

Whatever they think about LGBT issues, immigration, women’s rights or multiculturalism, etc. Democrats are capitalists and this means that average people will be oppressed by the wealthy elite under any Democratic Party regime. The neoliberal capitalistic economics of the Democrats, adopted during the Bill Clinton years, is a form of “trickle-down-economics” they often mock the GOP for supporting. The deregulation of the banking industry under Bill Clinton rather directly enabled the 2008 recession. Democratic commitment to neoliberal capitalism hindered any real or half-hearted attempt to help the average U.S. citizen in the wake of the recession.

Given these conditions, it is no surprise then that in the election season there was a strong anti-establishment fervor. Many citizens are sick and tired of the increasingly miserable status quo and yearn for someone who can bring change to our government and society. A majority of voters listed the ability to bring about change as the top quality they looked for in a President. People flocked to hear anti-establishment candidates like Trump and Sanders. Both candidates made it clear that they saw people’s suffering and wanted to bring change, but explained the root cause of their suffering and the proposed solutions differently. Trump played upon white anxieties, anti-immigrant sentiment, fears of terrorism, and racism to fuel his populist and nativist rise. Sanders identified the oppressors exploiting America as the wealthy elite, banks and corporate institutions that had rigged the system against the average person.

The Democratic Party Insisted on Defending the Status Quo

The Democratic Party intentionally disregarded people’s hatred for the status quo. While Democratic, Republican, Independent and unaffiliated voters were calling for radical change the Democratic establishment loudly and clearly said “no” by their rhetoric and choices in the 2016 election cycle.

The DNC/HRC Campaign argued that now was not the time for dramatic change in a more progressive direction . They argued that the status quo was already progressive “enough” despite clear economic indications it was not working for most citizens. They argued that Trump was such an existential threat to the nation that the party could not risk running Sanders, a candidate who railed against the status quo. The DNC claimed that it was far better to protect the way things are than to shoot for the moon and end up with nothing. Any proposals the DNC/HRC Campaign offered to address issues many citizens were concerned with were constrained by their commitment to neoliberal capitalism. Constrained by this ideological commitment these proposals, like their predecessors in the last eight years, fell far short of the dramatic change many increasingly see as necessary.

While one might debate the merits of polling data, Sander’s potential in a general election, the benefits of hindsight and Clinton’s strengths and weaknesses, one thing cannot be denied: Clinton was and is an establishment candidate that represents the status quo. Clinton is a career politician, the wife of a previous President and a D.C. insider who has been personally enriched by her political power for years. This meant she was exactly the wrong type of candidate to capture the anti-establishment fervor of the past election season or run against it. While Sanders was far more electable than Clinton, and would have capitalized on this anti-establishment energy instead of running against it, the Democratic Party knowingly committed themselves to a far less feasible candidate because that candidate would preserve the status quo.

The Swan Song of the HRC Campaign

Perhaps the greatest example of Democratic Party’s devotion to the status quo under neoliberal capitalism was their adoption of the slogan, “America is already Great.” It was precisely at this moment in the campaign that I personally assumed a Trump presidency was likely if not inevitable. Elite, wealthy, comfortable Democrats were telling people suffering under the status quo, a status quo that Democrats had a hand in making and preserving, that things were already great. While there were more nuanced discussions about “work that needed to be done” this slogan broadcast to the American public that the Democratic Party was disconnected from their reality. Even worse, the Democrats viewed the grueling circumstances of average people as something to be celebrated as “great.” This incensed Trump supporters who already felt overlooked and discouraged Democratic voters who felt Democrats leaders were telling them to settle for what they desperately wanted to see changed.

Nevertheless, they persisted.

The status quo is increasingly miserable for most U.S. citizens, and we get that at a visceral level if not in a nuanced and well-thought out way. The Democrats know this. Polling data, economic data, and social data that Democratic strategist, think-tanks and leaders all have access to and obsess over make this abundantly clear. They are not ignorant. They did not “just miss” this. The Democrats know that continuing to preserve the status quo of neoliberal capitalism makes them increasingly unpopular. The Democrats know they must attempt to obscure these facts or find/create a greater evil to focus voters on in order to remain politically viable.

Nevertheless, they persisted (and continue to persist) in defending the status quo and attempting to distract from this underlying reality. This is probably due to the very simple reason that the status quo benefits the Democrats in many ways and they are more concerned about representing the financial interests that enrich them personally and fund their political campaigns than they are actually representing the interests of their constituents.

Sanders financial support from small donors proved that if politicians take the side of the people, the people will take care of the fundraising necessary. This means the Democratic loyalty to the status quo in D.C. is a choice, not a problematic necessity of U.S. politics. Additionally, the fate of the Democrats in the last eight years should make it clear that the coercive tactic of “lesser evilism” has lost its power. It appears the lives of many voters are so bad under Democrats the threat, “it would be worse under the GOP” has lost its edge. If the Democrats desire to remain a politically viable party, they need to attend to the needs of the people they claim to represent, not remain committed to an economic ideology that enables the exploitation of many and corrupts what is left of our democracy.

According to some who study revolutions, there are at least two basic types of revolutionary guerrilla movements that are differentiated by their origins. One type of movement arises when one social group (such as peasants and workers) rises up against their oppressors that exist in the same society (such as land-owners and capitalists). The other type of movement arises when an outside invader occupies a country and a resistance movement including everyone from the occupied society naturally and spontaneously develops. These two basic types of guerrilla movements have notable differences, among them are the challenges they face to internal cohesiveness and unity.

In the movements that arise from internal oppression within a society, the cohesiveness of the movement is relatively easy to establish. This is because the guerrilla movement is made up of people with many shared identities, experiences, motivations and overall goals; the members of the movement experienced the same oppression and are rising up to end it.

In the second type of movement that stems from foreign occupation, the cohesiveness and unity of the movement can be difficult to establish. This is because the guerrilla movement is made of up different groups that have been forced to align by the occupation that threatens all groups. This means the movement will be made up of people with different identities, experiences, motivations and overall goals. It may very well even include groups that are antagonistic or oppressive to other groups in the resistance.

The Trump and GOP Occupation of our Government

In many ways those of us on the Left in the United States have experienced the election of Trump and GOP retention of control in Congress and future control of the Supreme Court as a foreign occupation. While those in power share our nationality, they are “foreign” in that their agenda is consistently opposed to our interests and we understand the GOP as fundamentally hostile to us. While those in power were elected, we are all being forced to accept an agenda that even a minority of those who voted for Trump fully and actively support.

It is no surprise then that like a foreign occupation, the advent of the current government has inspired a resistance movement that naturally and spontaneously developed. Like a resistance inspired by foreign occupation, our resistance shares the same challenges to unity and cohesiveness. Many different groups from within our society have been forced to align because of the danger we see in Trump and the GOP. This new resistance movement is made up of people with many different identities, experiences, motivations, and goals as well as many groups that are antagonistic and oppressive towards one another.

If we can learn anything from revolutionary theory in this moment, it is while this resistance is encouraging, its origin means that it will be challenging to establish cohesiveness and unity within our ranks. These challenges need to be addressed quite intentionally if we are to make significant progress. While there are a myriad of specific challenges to be addressed, there are a number of things I think we should keep in mind as we attempt to build unity within this resistance.

While Clinton ended up winning the popular vote, buoyed by millions of voters who voted to stop Trump despite misgivings about Clinton, I do not think this tactic succeeded as she lost the election, as did many other Democrats in Congressional races. It shielded the Democratic Party from examining their own weaknesses and areas where they can and should change, undermining them in the long-run. It sowed resentment on the Left as many recognized the coercive tactic for what it was.

Such an approach is not going to inspire unity after the election anymore than it did before the election. So while we recognize the threat of Trump has arrived, it should not be used to silent dissent within the Left or evade responsibility for problems with individuals or groups that are within the Left. Statements like, “Stop criticizing X, or you’re going to breed disunity and Trump will stay in power!” has no place in our resistance.

Leftists who have been engaged need to patiently educate the new arrivals:

Undocumented trans activist Jennicet Gutierrez heckling Obama over the plight of undocumented LGBT people. She was shouted down by documented LGBT activists who wanted to celebrate Obama and marriage equality.

All of us, at one point or another, on one issue or another, can point to a time when we were not aware of injustices that needed to be addressed, how we might be complicit in them, or how to best address them. This is still an ongoing conversation and learning process for all of us if we are honest. This is especially true of injustice that doesn’t impact us, or people from our community or the identities we claim.

While it is fair and important to bring people to task for their ignorance, inactivity or partisan morality, it is perhaps best to direct it all towards the overall goal of continuing education and engagement not “winning” points against others in the resistance. If the resistance devolves into “Oppression Olympics,” privilege-bashing parties, or arguments about who is was “woke” first, then it is going to be fruitless resistance.

If there ever was a time for those previously engaged in activism to educate others, it is now. Millions of people are upset and asking about how to oppose Trump, how to get engaged, and how to help improve our society and oppose injustice. This is a good thing that seasoned organizers should be taking full advantage of. As Kwame Ture once said, “The job of the conscious is to make the unconscious conscious,” and now is an ideal time for that.

Overall left-leaning activists who have been engaged in this work for years, need to temper their understandable annoyance and frustration with new arrivals as they take their first steps and grow in their thinking and praxis. We have to bear with one another at times if we are going to build with one another long-term.

New arrivals need to be humble, introspective and teachable.

Those fresh to the fight for justice need to temper their enthusiasm, righteous indignation and passion with humility. My own political journey from hard-line right-winger to where I am today was long and filled with mistakes. I cringe at some of the things I said and did, even when I thought I had “arrived” at a far more progressive place in my thinking and praxis. I share this because this is a common experience as people grow in their understanding of injustice and resistance to it.

It is important that new arrivals strive to be humble and teachable as they engage seriously in politics, perhaps for the first time. New arrivals should not assume because you are active now, that’s the end of their political journey. New arrivals should not assume that because they were not politically active or outraged before, that others were not. New arrivals should not place themselves at the center of attention, even when and where they are the majority. New arrivals should not shout down the concerns or shut out the criticism from other groups they are aligned with.

New arrivals also need to seriously question why they were complacent before when so many others were negatively impacted by polices they ignored or even defended. Such people need to ask very difficult questions of themselves. Why did I initially support the invasion of Iraq that left hundreds of thousands dead and led to the rise of IS? Why did many white women stay home when undocumented women, women of color, and LGBT women need their support over the last several year but then suddenly march after Trump’s inauguration? Why are the Meryl Streep’s of this world silent on the violence represented by Clinton and Obama but vocal in opposition to the violence represented by Trump? Why were mass demonstrations against the banning of Muslim refugees organized but no mass demonstrations against the Democratic led bombing campaigns and wars that made many Muslims refugees? Why was corruption and nepotism excusable under Clinton, but now not under Trump? Why is Trump’s racist rhetoric more alarming than the racist impact of many status quo policies (including those supported by the Democrats)? These questions, and the answers to them, should not and cannot be avoided.

New Arrivals should not just engage in introspection but seek to actively learn from those who have been active for years. New arrivals should not put their comfort above the criticism they receive from others about their present actions and past inaction. Sometimes criticism that we need to hear comes from a gentle nudge by those more experienced than us, or a stern rebuke, but we can and should grow from both. I encourage many of the new arrivals to this resistance to seek out people who have been active for years that are willing to educate you on issues you have not previously considered.

Intentionally Address Inter-Group Conflict Instead of Ignoring It

Filipino farm workers and Mexican farm workers were often pitted against each other by land owners and used to break each others strikes. Unity had to be built and these conflicts could not be avoided before success was achieved.

Inter-group conflict does not just exist in this new resistance between seasoned activists and new arrivals. By the members that make up our impromptu resistance, it is primed to rapidly dissolve over long-standing issues and the intersection between our various identities the oppression and privileges they represent.

There are White Trump resisters who are anti-Black. There are Black Trump resisters who are homophobic. There are LGBT Trump resisters who are unconcerned with the oppression of the undocumented. There are undocumented Trump resisters who care little about the bombings of Muslim countries. There are Muslim Trump resisters who scorn Asians for their model minority status. There are Asian Trump resisters who ignore the plight of the poor. There are poor Trump resisters who are anti-Indigenous and thoroughly colonial in their mentality. Etc.

The unity forced on our groups by the threat of Trump and the GOP is cheap and temporary. There are many inter-group conflicts that could take years if not decades to fully address but we cannot shy away from this task. It is tempting to seek to avoid these conflicts, perhaps by trying to focus on the threat posed to everyone by Trump and the GOP, or ignoring or explaining away these conflicts. But this simply will not do.

Part of our work moving forward is to turn this cheap unity of necessity and convenience into a robust unity that can shape a more just society. This lasting unity can only be realized if we acknowledge our past and present conflicts and work to resolve them.

Building Real Unity in This Resistance Will be Hard but it is Necessary

It is going to be way harder than this stock photo.

Unity of our movement will be hard to build. It require patience, empathy, and putting ourselves into a listening and learning posture more often than not. This is not easy to do. This is especially not easy to do with Trump and the GOP constantly pushing their limits. However, this is a worthy and necessary goal. If we fail to develop a unified resistance movement our resistance is likely to be ineffectual in stopping or Trump or will only manage to return us to the status quo, which is where a large number of progressives feel the oppression in the U.S. is at tolerable levels.

Many on the Left, including myself, believe Trump and the GOP agenda will be a disaster for most people. As Trump and the GOP advance their agenda a common refrain uttered in response by those on the Left is, “This is not normal.” This is part of the larger insistence from those on the Left that we resist the normalization of Trump. What people on the Left mean by this is that we should not accept Trump’s extremes as the “New Normal” thus allowing it to become the status quo in the U.S. now and into the forseeable future. While I understand the concern around normalizing Trump and agree with the idea, I wonder where these people have been the last several years and even decades.

Trump is vulgar, uncouth and generally repulsive in a lot of his statements and behaviors. This is a jarring contrast to the polished presentation of President Obama, and even (the less polished) President Bush. However, policy wise, Trump is not an abnormal figure that exists completely outside of our political status quo. Many of the policies and legislative aims Trump has called for have actually been part of the political status quo here for some time and have even enjoyed support by the Democratic Party.

While Trump is vulgar, while Trump is oppressive, while Trump is doing away with pretense, Trump is not new. Trump, or more accurately the policies that Trump is pursuing, is an escalation of the status quo, not a break with the status quo. Many of the policies he advances or dubious actions he takes are but one or two steps removed from standard fare for the GOP and the Democratic Party alike. The fact that many see Trump as an outlier underlines the uncritical relationship many have with politics. The fact that many Democrats are now up in arms about Trumps behavior but were silent when Democrats did very similar things is an alarming indication that their morality and ethics are based in partisan politics not principle.

While I understand the call to not normalize Trump, I fear the time to have resisted the normalization of the Trump’s behavior and policies has already passed; the need for alarm and resistance already existed long before Trump. The fact that many on the left do not understand this, the fact that they do not get the status quo was already intolerably oppressive, under Republicans and Democrats alike, and major action was already needed, is part of the problem. The fact that many liberals were comfortable as others were fighting the unjust status quo that existed under both parties is part of the challenge to unity the Left now faces.

Understanding the Problem Correctly Leads to Correct Solutions

I do not bring all this up to excuse Trump or his escalation of existing problems. I do not bring this all up to shame liberals suddenly concerned and active after ignoring these issues for the last eight years. I bring all this up because without understanding Trump in the correct way we will pursue incorrect or incomplete solutions to the very real problems in our society.

Framing Trump as an exception to the rule implies that once he is dealt with, we can get back to our normal political lives and routines. For many liberals this means voting for Democrats down the ballot and ignoring or accepting the consequences of Democratic policies that hurt many people. Our resistance to Trump would just be a fight back to a previously unjust status quo that many liberals tolerated because they did not feel personally targeted by. Liberal activism would amount to a form of oppression management that sought to keep oppression and injustice in the U.S. at levels that didn’t offend their sensibilities.

Framing Trump rightly as an escalation to the status quo forces us to see that even after Trump there will be much work to be done. Such a resistance will be forced to reckon with why we tolerated so much injustice to become the norm, especially from those claiming to be champions of the Left, and question what solutions outside and inside of electoral politics we can and should pursue. Liberal activism would be forced to grow towards a form of liberation movement that sought to end oppression and injustice in the U.S., even when it didn’t impact them personally.

While this may seem like nitpicking or an unnecessary nuance to explore in the dire times we live in, I fear that if we do not make this distinction clear in our thinking and praxis, the best the resistance to Trump could accomplish is a return to a disengaged Left and an oppressive status quo which created the conditions for his rise.

His actual slogan should be, “Make the Poor and Marginalized Suffer More”

I’m tempted to not even write this post as the first few steps of the Trump presidency and those in the coming weeks and months will make my point better than I can. However, for the record, I believe Trump and the GOP controlling our government for the next several years will be bad for just about every average person (the 99%) and really good for corporate and financial interests (the 1%). I say this for a number of reasons.

The overall GOP agenda is hurtful to the average person, and to marginalized communities especially.

While Trump’s campaign slogan was to “Make America Great Again” the GOP agenda solves problems that do not exist, endanger the public, and enrich the already wealthy. It is hard to see how any of this will “Make America Great Again”

These people will help shape the future of our nation for their benefit.

Beyond the general direction of the GOP agenda Trump’s cabinet picks and close advisers do not bode well for us either. As his team assembled I felt like it was the #LegionOfDoom assembling, but with more money, more conflicts of interest and less competence.

Overall, the GOP agenda appears to be a problematic mix of ineffective solutions to real problems that face us, hurtful solutions to non-existent problems, and legislation that will enrich the already extremely wealthy. Trumps advisers and cabinet members for the most part are problematic members of the 1% who will use their new positions to undermine the very roles they are supposed to fill in order to enrich themselves and their peers at great cost to the American people. The net impact of their agenda in the coming years will not “Make America Great Again” (however that was envisioned) but continue enriching the elite at great cost to the rest of us.

Barring some unlikely scenarios, the GOP will effectively be in control of all branches of government for at least the next two years. Progressive citizens can protest this all we want, but even if we were completely unified (which we are not) our representatives are numerically incapable of blocking Trump or the Congress from passing regressive legislation or appointees that will hurt many communities we care about.

How those opposed to the GOP agenda respond in the coming weeks, months, and two years before the next Congressional election is critical. In 2018 there is a chance to challenge the GOP control of Congress. Not only is this important as it is the most potent and feasible way to change the balance of power in the federal government, but it will have a great impact on the re-drawing of districts after the census of 2020. If the GOP retains control in 2018 in Congress, they could re-district the nation in ways favorable to GOP candidates, helping to shore up their chances in future elections.

While I am encouraged by the responses to some of Trump’s actions that have happened already, I am thinking more broadly and more-long term about how progressives can flip the balance of power. I am also thinking about what progressives can work towards rather than always being reacting to the GOP’s actions. Over the next two years (and beyond) I want to commit my finite energy and resources to the most effective and promising ways to oppose the regressive GOP legislation, so I have been thinking about this a lot. In this long, multi-page post (use the numbers at the bottom to change pages) I wanted to share my thoughts at length as I’m sure others are in the same boat.

Looking forward I see a few broad options available to progressives, some of which are more viable than others, and none of them are really good or easy.